One more > for Family Values??? - Page 27 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-18-2007, 07:08 PM   #391
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Also with the derogatory and personal attacks on my faith by you and others, -it also breaks another forum rule:

-Anything that is defamatory towards another site, person, or organization.

Yes and straights should marshall their overt public sexual tendencies.

I'm a big fan of irony as well.





























Honestly, your hypocricy is reaching new heights.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-18-2007, 07:11 PM   #392
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


On your first question-she should, according to forum rules:

-Cross-posting your topic in multiple forums (threads) is not allowed.

Also with the derogatory and personal attacks on my faith by you and others, -it also breaks another forum rule:

-Anything that is defamatory towards another site, person, or organization.

Yes and straights should marshall their overt public sexual tendencies.

dbs
If that's what she meant (maybe it's just my thoughts projected, I will absolutely admit to that) then martha is still not violating any rules-that is not cross posting a topic.

And I have never ONCE made any personal or derogatory attack on your faith-that is complete fabricated bs. I don't do that here, even if anyone attacks mine. You conveniently ignore your own words and actions here.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-18-2007, 07:49 PM   #393
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 11:50 PM
I meant in FYM in general.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-18-2007, 10:21 PM   #394
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
On your first question-she should, according to forum rules:

-Cross-posting your topic in multiple forums (threads) is not allowed.

Also with the derogatory and personal attacks on my faith by you and others, -it also breaks another forum rule:

-Anything that is defamatory towards another site, person, or organization.

Yes and straights should marshall their overt public sexual tendencies.

dbs
You're unbelievable.

Why don't you drop the BS, just for one day, and really debate the issues. Stop with getting defensive every time someone calls you out for your hypocrisy and offensiveness. Stop breaking out the rule book on minor, minor technicalities that don't mean anything and that you know are huge stretches, just because you don't want to respond to the posts. Stop ignoring my posts and other people's posts because you don't "feel they have merit." Come here to debate. So far, in a year and a half, all I've seen from you is a pattern that either ends with you ignoring posts, dismissing everyone, or waving the rule book around and running away at the sight of an argument. You don't debate. I feel bad for real conservatives, because you give them a terrible summary. Hit-and-run posting. Picture posting. Irrelevant, offensive insults of homosexuals and women. And every time people call you on it, you run away or cry foul. As much as you copy and paste rules and forum descriptions, the bottom line is that this is a debate forum. And you don't do that. You make a mockery of every poster here, and every conservative. I'm glad that there are conservatives here like AEON that can at least articulate and defend their positions, because then people here at least know that every conservative isn't running away. Do you ever wonder why you get so many people replying to your posts with questions and shock? Maybe it's not just liberals with their "silly agendas." Maybe it's not "personal attacks." Maybe, just maybe, it's the way you hold yourself in here. You preach and preach about how people should behave, yet never once do you seem to follow through on your standards yourself. When people say you are offensive, you never apologize or recognize the fact that you are offensive. You just continue the irrelevant posts.

So what am I asking? I'm asking you to please, finally, for all of us, drop this whole act. Come here and debate the issues. Come here and have intelligent conversation, defending your positions, making arguments, and making sense. That way, every time you post, we don't have to sidetrack ourselves with ten different replies pointing out offensiveness, irrelevant points, and hypocrisy. We can get back to debating again.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 09:46 AM   #395
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


So you admit it's not completely genetic, correct?

dbs


it's 100% involuntary and unchosen, that much is certain. the point, as always, there's nothing you can do about it.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 12:08 PM   #396
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




it's 100% involuntary and unchosen, that much is certain. the point, as always, there's nothing you can do about it.
Not according to some reseach:

DO STUDIES SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A GAY GENE?

The most frequently cited study was conducted by molecular biologists at the National Institutes of Health under the direction of Dean Hamer. This study is currently under investigation by the federal Office of Research Integrity for possible scientific misconduct, because one of the study collaborators alleges that Hamer suppressed data that would have reduced the statistical significance of the reported results.

Hamer’s group examined DNA samples from self-identified gay men and other gay male family members. The researchers claim they have found a DNA segment, called a "marker," on the X chromosome, the chromosome men inherit only from their mother and not from their father. They say that most, though not all, gay men within a family share such a marker. (In a more recent study, they conclude that lesbian sisters do not share this marker.) They now hope that by defining this marker more closely, they will be able to identify a "gene for gayness" on the X chromosome.

One of the problems with their approach is that Hamer and his colleagues did not feel it necessary to check whether any of the straight men in these families share the marker in question. If even only a few of them do, it calls into question what the gene or the self-identification signifies. More recently, Hamer has tested this out, and the results do not change his interpretation.

But even more significant for Hamer’s studies is the definition of who is gay. Hamer uses the extremely conservative estimate of two percent for the prevalence of homosexuality among American men. Increasing this value to the usually accepted values of five to ten percent reduces or even eliminates the statistical significance of his results. The reason Hamer gives for his unusually low estimate is that he wants to work only with "real" gay men, that is, men who have essentially never veered from their preference for men in their sexual fantasies or activities. His definition does not take into account the large population of men who have sexual relations with men, but who do not identify as gay, or men who have had sexual relationships or marriages with women, or have fathered children, but now do identify as gay. If research on sexual orientation does not consider this diversity of sexual identities, the social relevance of this research is limited.

Hamer’s results remain controversial. An independent study of gay siblings did not reproduce his results, though the Hamer group now reports a second study which supports the role of a gene on the X chromosome in male homosexuality. But none of the results, including Hamer’s, support the claim that any single gene can determine sexual orientation.

Another study claiming that there is a connection between homosexuality and biology, by the neurophysiologist Simon LeVay, claims that a specific structure in the brain is smaller in gay than in straight men. The size of this structure in gay men, he claims, is more like that seen in heterosexual women – though in fact, he has no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined. All of LeVay’s observations were made on the brains of cadavers, and his evidence about the sexual orientation and practices of the people in life is entirely circumstantial. Furthermore, the "gay men" all died of AIDS, which is known sometimes to affect brain structures. Another criticism of this study is that in some of LeVay’s "gay" samples, the structure was larger than in the "straight" ones, so that upon inspection, there is no basis for deciding whether a given person in life had been "gay" or "straight."

WHAT ROLE DO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS PLAY?

Arguments for a biological basis of sexual orientation have also been offered, based on questionable studies of twins and other siblings. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, researchers at Northwestern University and the Boston University School of Medicine, measured sexual orientation in brothers of gay men. They found that for adoptive and non-twin brothers of gay men, about 10% were also gay, a rate often attributed to the general population. The rate of "double" homosexuality for fraternal twins was 22%, and for identical twins, 52%.

The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were found to be roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors play a role, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers. In light of these results, it does not seem surprising that an even larger proportion of identical twins would have similar behaviors since the world thinks of them as "the same" and treats them accordingly, and they often share such feelings of sameness.

Homophobia – another clearly environmental factor – may also have affected the study’s results by distorting the sample. Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of gay and bisexual men. The study’s participants "were recruited through advertisements placed in gay publications in several Midwest and Southwest cities." Thus all the respondents read gay periodicals and probably were, to some degree, public about their sexuality. In addition, they responded to ads asking them about their brothers. Although the ads asked gay men to "call regardless of the sexual orientation of [their] brother[s]," men with gay brothers might well have been more likely to participate than men with straight brothers, especially if the straight brothers were homophobic or the gay ones were not "out" to their families. Since many people believe that homosexuality is genetic, a straight man who has a gay twin, and especially a gay "identical" twin, might well feel that his own sexual orientation was "suspect," and refuse to participate in the study, finding the subject threatening. Conversely, if identical twins are both gay, they might find the subject interesting and be eager to volunteer for a study.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 12:19 PM   #397
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,747
Local Time: 02:50 AM
was this research supported by the APA?
__________________
unico is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 12:31 PM   #398
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by unico
was this research supported by the APA?
Are you claiming that all findings ever made by the American Psychological Association are infallible?

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 12:34 PM   #399
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,747
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Are you claiming that all findings ever made by the American Psychological Association are infallible?

dbs
did i say that or did i ask a yes or no question that you did not answer?
__________________
unico is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 12:40 PM   #400
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by unico


did i say that or did i ask a yes or no question that you did not answer?
By the inference of your question you seem to hold the APA as infallible.

I don't know the answer to your original question, nor do I think it matters much as and I do not view the APA as having absolute, correct, complete and irrefutable knowledge on this subject.

I hope they do not claim that they do, and to the best of my knowledge they don't.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 12:56 PM   #401
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,747
Local Time: 02:50 AM
i never said anything about infallibility. i asked a simple question and you are making judgments. nobody is infallible, we all know that. i can't tell if you're trying to make fun of me or if you are serious. if you honest don't know then fine, that's all you had to say.

the apa doesn't even claim to be infallible. but there are certain studies which they will support.

would you trust medication that was not approved by the fda? and if you don't, does that necessarily mean that the fda is infallible? sheesh.
__________________
unico is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 01:02 PM   #402
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by unico
nobody is infallible, we all know that. i can't tell if you're trying to make fun of me or if you are serious.

the apa doesn't even claim to be infallible.


would you trust medication that was not approved by the fda?

and if you don't, does that necessarily mean that the fda is infallible? sheesh.
No, I wasn't making fun of you.

Yes I'm glad we agree that APA isn't infallible, we may differ on this subject though-and most Americans may differ with the APA on this subject (if that were the case).

Yes even the FDA is fallible-agreed.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 01:57 PM   #403
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 02:50 AM
What's the source for that research? I don't get what whoever wrote that means by "homophobia". That's a different meaning than what I understand that word to mean.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 01:58 PM   #404
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Yes I'm glad we agree that APA isn't infallible, we may differ on this subject though-and most Americans may differ with the APA on this subject (if that were the case).


does the opinion of the American public matter at all? what matters is what science says and what psychiatry says.

all evidence points to a very strong link between biology and seuxal orientation. is there a "gay" gene? probably not, but this has nothing to do with the biological basis for sexual orientation. it's akin to people saying, "yeah, well prove to me that Jesus DIDN'T walk on water."

secondly, environmental factors are both important, yet utterly irrelevant. either way, it all remains UNCHOSEN. homosexuality is not a choice, nor is heterosexuality. the oft-repeated lies about overbearing mothers/distant fathers is demonstrably false, and it also seems likely that a gay male child is arguably going to draw his mother closer ("oh! you want to play piano?") and his father farther away ("why don't you care that the redskins are playing?"), but, firstly, none of this is anybody's fault, none of this can be improved by parenting "techniques" as espoused by Dobson, and besides, there's nothing about being gay that should make someone want to *correct* this.

this is the thing -- it's no different than the thread about the DNA guy who said that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites. you're positing that something has gone "wrong" when a gay person identifies as such, that the reality of same-sex attraction is an error, that it's correctable, and thusly that it is a matter of choice. and while all of that is demonstrably false, some people need to cling to these lies in order to justify their own homophobia and their continued support to politicians who deny the civil rights of gay people.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-19-2007, 02:00 PM   #405
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 08:50 AM
When did you actively, by the full control of your own, decide to be straight?

Does there have to be a gene that you are hetero or homo to make it something you don't chose, and don't control yourself?

Does there have to be a gene that I am a huge U2 fan?
With U2 for example it would be hard to argue that it's the environment that makes me like it, as with my age group U2 isn't that hugely popular in Germany, and all of my environment that time wasn't into U2 at all. Still it's my absolute favorite.

Will they find a gene in my body that makes me a fan?

Will they necessarily have to find a gene with a gay person to say it's not an active decision, or may this be determined by other factors, without being consious? Is genes all we have got?

Maybe some biologist could say something here, but I'm afraid we don't have any.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com